coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  On 29 January 2009 the police arrested a person who was protesting peacefully in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office.
6.  As a reaction to that event, the applicant organisations decided to hold a demonstration in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office, followed by a march to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and a demonstration in front of the latter.
7.  On 2 February 2009 the first and the second applicants lodged a notification with the municipal authorities in which they stated their intention to conduct the above event, which they described as a spontaneous reaction to the events of 29 January 2009. They relied on Section 12(1) of the Assemblies Act (see paragraph 11 below).
8.  On 3 February 2009 the first and the second applicants organised a protest demonstration in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office. From the video submitted by the parties, it appears that approximately twenty individuals took part in the demonstration. The third applicant was among the participants. Several minutes after the beginning of the demonstration the protesters were attacked by six men wearing masks who started to physically assault them and to spray tear gas and paint over them. As a result of the attack the third applicant sustained numerous injuries to his head and limbs and needed medical treatment. The protesters defended themselves and managed to chase away the attackers. They also managed to immobilise two of the attackers. One of the attackers admitted to having been paid 1,000 Moldovan lei (approximately 60 euros (EUR)) by an unknown person for his participation in the attack.
9.  The gathering was observed from the very beginning by four uniformed police officers who were in a patrol car parked close to the place of the event. Also, the event was filmed by approximately six people in plain clothes, who ‒ according to the applicants ‒ were police officers. The Government denied that those filming the event were police officers. When the clash between the protesters and the attackers began, no police officer intervened. The protesters called the police and requested assistance but to no avail. A police patrol appeared only one hour and a half later and took the two immobilised attackers into custody.
10.  The organisers of the demonstration lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office and complained inter alia about the failure of the police to intervene promptly. A criminal investigation was initiated and all six attackers identified. Only two of them were eventually given suspended sentences of four years for violation of the freedom of assembly of others and hooliganism. No action was taken in respect of the applicant’s complaint about the inaction of the police.
4.  The applicants were born in 1937, 1933, 1941 and 1934, respectively, and live in Albania and the United States of America.
5.  On 30 December 1994 the Tirana Restitution and Compensation of Properties Commission (“the Commission”) recognised, amongst others, the applicants’ inherited property rights over a plot of land measuring 2,461.97 sq. m and decided to restore the property. Since buildings had been constructed on the land by a third party, the Commission ruled that the third party should pay rent for the land or re-purchase the land pursuant to an agreement to be entered into between the parties. It also recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of the buildings.
6.   On 18 February 1997 the applicants lodged a civil claim with the Tirana District Court seeking the annulment of a 1996 sale contract entered between the State and the third party over two plots of lands measuring 197 sq. m and 195 sq. m, which they claimed to own. The applicants also sought the payment of rent by the third party pursuant to the 1993 Property Act. In the same set of proceedings, the third party lodged a counter action requesting the partial annulment of the Commission decision.
7.  On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court gave a final decision dismissing the applicants’ claims. It also dismissed their right to first refusal as regards the buildings on the plots of land which had been granted by the Commission. It decided that the applicants are entitled to compensation in respect of the plot of land measuring 2,461.97 sq. m to be determined in accordance with the 1993 Property Act.
8.  On 22 October 2004 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a full bench, found no violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial.
9.  To date, no compensation has been paid.
6.  The applicants were born in 1966, 1960, 1953, 1980 and live in Budapest, Pápa, Budapest and Répcelak, respectively.
7.  From 2008 Mr Mester was employed as a civil servant in a government ministry. His employment was terminated in 2010. His former employer paid him, after payroll burdens, a net amount of 2,500,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 7,800 euros (EUR)), including payment for unused annual leave and an additional three months’ salary.
8.  Mr Gőgös was employed in a government ministry from 2006 as a civil servant. Following the termination of his employment in 2010, his former employer paid him severance payment in the net amount of HUF 5,200,000 (EUR 16,300) corresponding to six months’ salary and payment for unused annual leave.
9.  From 2005 Ms Zimay was employed by a State-owned company. Her employment was terminated by mutual agreement in January 2010. Under this agreement, the employer paid her a gross amount of HUF 25,900,000 (EUR 81,200), including payment for unused annual leave and an additional eight months’ salary. The severance payment was subject to payroll burdens in the amount of HUF 12,400,000 (EUR 38,900).
10.  From 2003 Ms Hegedűs was employed as a civil servant in various government ministries. Following the termination of her employment in 2010, her former employer paid her severance payment in the net amount of HUF 3,100,000 (EUR 9,700) after deduction of payroll burdens.
11.  Under new legislation (see paragraph 12 below) the severance payments were subsequently taxed at a 98% rate in their part exceeding HUF 3.5 million; the income tax and social security contributions already paid were deducted from the tax payable. Thus, Mr Mester paid additional tax in the amount of HUF 1,400,000 (EUR 4,400), Mr Gőgös in the amount of HUF 4,000,000 (EUR 1,300), Ms Zimay in the amount of HUF 11,100,000 (EUR 34,900) and Ms Hegedűs in the amount of HUF 2,000,000 (EUR 6,300).
5.  The applicant organisation is a non-governmental human rights organisation based in Yerevan.
6.  On 12 May 2007 a third person, L.G., who was apparently a witness in a murder investigation, died while at a police station. According to the official version, L.G. died in an attempt to escape by jumping out of a second-floor window of the police station. It appears that this event provoked an outcry among Armenian human rights groups and civil society.
7.  On 19 February 2008 a presidential election was held in Armenia, which was followed by mass post-election rallies and protests and an intense standoff between the authorities and the supporters of the opposition, resulting in clashes and at least ten persons being killed.
8.  On 1 March 2008 a state of emergency was declared by the President of Armenia for a period of 20 days, during which all public assemblies were banned.
9.  On 6 May 2008 the applicant organisation applied to the Mayor of Yerevan, notifying its intention to hold a mourning march on the first anniversary of L.G.’s death. The march was to take place on 12 May from 8 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. It was to start at Republic Square and continue through Nalbandyan Street in the direction of the police station.
10.  On 8 May 2008 the Mayor decided to ban the planned event, with reference to Sections 9 § 4 (3) and 13 § 1 (3) of the Assemblies, Rallies, Marches and Demonstrations Act (“the Act”), finding:
“According to the official opinion of the Police ... of 8 May 2008 ..., the mass public event held on 1 March 2008 turned into mass disorder resulting in human casualties and not all the circumstances of the crime and offenders have been disclosed, and not all weapons and ammunition used [at that event], whose circulation may pose danger to the lives and health of citizens, have been found in the course of the investigation into the criminal case instituted in connection with that fact by the Special Investigative Service of Armenia[. H]ence, it will be impossible to prevent new crimes, if the mass public event [in question] is held.
According to the official opinion of the National Security Service ... of 7 May 2008 ..., the National Security Service of Armenia has credible and verified data which show that the mass public event in question, if allowed, will result in undermining national security, public order, and the health and morality of society, in encroachments on constitutional rights and freedoms and in disorder and [new] crimes.”
11.  By a letter of 12 May 2008 this decision was posted to the applicant organisation. On the same date the police, who had apparently been informed of the decision of 8 May 2008, prevented the organisers from holding the planned event.
12.  On 13 May 2008 the applicant organisation received the letter of 12 May 2008.
5.  The applicants, Senanik Öner and Ferhan Türk, were born in 1952 and 1951 respectively and live in Diyarbakır.
6.  On 21 March 2007 the applicants attended the Newroz celebrations in Kızıltepe, a district of Mardin, and made certain speeches concerning the problems of Kurdish people. The relevant extracts from the applicants’ statements can be summarised as follows:
“For the attention of the press and public:
I celebrate your day of Newroz. I commemorate the civilians who were killed by the members of security forces in Cizre, Nusaybin and Şırnak.
The PKK declared a ceasefire to stop the bloodshed and to contribute to the peace establishment process. Subsequently, the PKK also withdrew its armed forces out of the borders of Turkey to maintain peace. We expect affirmative steps from the state.
(...) The Kurdish leader, “Sayın[1]” Abdullah Öcalan has been poisoned and this is a very serious problem. Turkey should order an investigation into the Öcalan ‘poisoning’.
(...) The state did not take any steps for democratisation or to solve the Kurdish problem. We believe in peace and the state should take appropriate steps for solving the Kurdish problem.’’
7.  Subsequently, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants by the Kızıltepe Public Prosecutor, charging them with disseminating terrorist propaganda on behalf of an illegal organisation, the PKK (Kurdish Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation), under Section 7 § 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3713).
8.  On 15 April 2008 the Diyarbakır Assize Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to one year and eight months’ imprisonment.
9.  On 28 December 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld the first-instance court’s judgment.
10.  The applicants learned of this decision on 6 March 2012.
11.  On 12 October 2012, following an amendment to the law, the Diyarbakır Assize Court revised its judgment pursuant to Provisional Article 1 § 1 of the Law no. 6352 and suspended the execution of the applicants’ sentences.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Paris.
6.  She has been living with her daughter and brother in a flat in the Paris area since 2003. By a decision of 12 February 2010, served on 12 March 2010, the Paris mediation commission, finding that the applicant and her relatives were housed in indecent and insalubrious conditions, earmarked their case as a priority for urgent rehousing.
7.  As she had not received any offer of accommodation taking account of her needs and capacities six months after the date of that decision, the applicant lodged an application with the Paris Administrative Court seeking an order for the State to provide her with housing, on pain of a fine.
8.  On 28 December 2010 the Administrative Court upheld her application and instructed the prefect of the Île-de-France region to rehouse the applicant, her daughter and her brother, on pain of a fine of 700 euros (EUR), payable to the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region, for each month’s delay from 1 February 2011 onwards. The Administrative Court found as follows:
 “It emerges from the investigation that a safety architect employed by the Paris Police Commissioner’s Office noted on 9 July 2009 that the kitchen ceiling in the flat occupied by [the applicant], her daughter and her brother was in a dangerous state as it was unstable and weak. Her request should therefore be granted as a matter of particular urgency.”
9.  On 31 January 2012, as the applicant had still not been rehoused, the Administrative Court assessed the interim amount of the fine for the period from 1 February 2011 to 31 January 2012 and ordered the State to pay EUR 8,400 into the urban development fund for the Île-de-France region.
10.  As matters stand, the applicant and her family have still not been rehoused.
5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and is currently detained in Garbalin Prison.
6.  On an unspecified date before 2010 the applicant was convicted of homicide and sentenced to imprisonment. The term of his imprisonment was to end in 2016.
7.  At the relevant time he was detained in Włocławek Prison.
8.  On 23 December 2010 the applicant’s grandmother died.
9.  On 29 December 2010 in the morning the applicant received a telegram from his relatives informing him of the death of his grandmother and of the date of her funeral. The funeral was scheduled to take place on 30 December 2010 at 12 noon in Zgierz, a town located at a distance of approximately 100 kilometers from Włocławek.
10.  On the same day the applicant made an application for leave from prison to attend his grandmother’s funeral. His application was transmitted by the penitentiary authorities to the Włocławek Regional Court via fax at 2.46 p.m. It read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“I kindly ask the Regional Court to grant me leave to attend the funeral of my grandmother. She was very close to me, she was the person who had raised me. Thank you very much for considering my request.”
11.  By a decision of 30 December 2010 the Penitentiary Judge of the Włocławek Regional Court (sędzia penitencjarny), refused the applicant’s request. The reasons given for the decision were as follows:
“... the convicted person’s application for compassionate leave under Article 141a § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences was refused due to the nature of the committed offence, negative opinion about the convicted (negatywna opinia środowiskowa) and the remote date foreseen for the completion of his sentence.”
12.  The decision was notified in writing to the applicant on 31 December 2010. The applicant did not appeal against it as the funeral had already taken place and he considered that this would be purposeless.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Kraljevo.
6.  On 6 November 2008 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Kraljevo ordered socially/State-owned companies Holding Kompanija FVK AD “Vagonogradnja”, Holding Kompanija FVK AD, and Koncern FVK AD “Vagonogradnja” (the debtors) to pay to the applicant certain sums on account of salary arrears and employment related benefits.
7.  On 5 March 2009 the District Court (Okružni sud) in Kraljevo quashed one part of the judgment and remitted it to the first-instance court for a retrial. That part of the judgment is not the subject-matter of the present case. Furthermore, the District Court amended another part of the judgment of 6 November 2008 and upheld the remainder of it.
8.  The relevant part of the judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009, became both final and enforceable on 20 April 2009.
9.  On 28 December 2009 the applicant filed a request for enforcement of the judgment of 6 November 2008.
10.  On 29 January 2010 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Kraljevo, now acting as the competent court, ordered the applicant to remedy some shortcomings in her request for enforcement. On 3 February 2010 the applicant did so.
11.  On 26 April 2010 the enforcement proceedings were stayed because the debtors were undergoing restructuring.
12.  On 5 September 2011 the applicant requested the Court of First Instance to continue with the enforcement.
13.  On 26 September 2011 the Court of First Instance issued an enforcement order. On 17 May 2012 the enforcement order was quashed on appeal, as the debtors’ names were changed in the meantime.
14.  On 19 June 2012 the applicant informed the enforcement court of the debtors’ new names.
15.  On 17 September 2013 the Court of First Instance issued a fresh enforcement order. It awarded the applicant 36,567 Serbian dinars (RSD) on account of the enforcement costs. On 13 December 2013 the enforcement order was upheld on appeal.
16.  On 30 April 2014 the Court of First Instance ordered the applicant to provide further details about the debtors’ names, the amounts of social benefits due and the bank accounts for their payment. On 12 May 2014 the applicant provided the requested information.
17.  The judgment of 6 November 2008, as amended on 5 March 2009 is yet to be enforced.
5.  The applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Chisinau.
6.  On 11 November 2009 at approximately 11.30 p.m. the applicant was arrested on the street by several police officers wearing plain clothes, on suspicion of possession of drugs.
7.  According to the applicant, she was ill-treated by the police officers before being taken to the police station. At the police station she was held until the next morning.
8.  In a medical report issued on 13 November 2009 a forensic doctor found that the applicant presented numerous bruises to her face, arms and hips. An x-ray examination of the applicant’s head, which according to the medical report was conducted on the same date, showed that the applicant also had a broken nose.
9.  On 15 November 2009 the applicant was examined by a neurologist who determined that she had also suffered concussion.
10.  On 14 January 2010 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Prosecutor’s Office concerning her ill-treatment by the police on 11 November 2009.
11.  On 1 April 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused to initiate criminal proceedings on the ground that the applicant’s complaint was ill‑founded. The decision was based on the statements of the accused police officers who had denied having ill-treated the applicant and on the fact that there was a possibility that the applicant’s injuries were the result of her falling over.
12.  On 15 October 2010 a superior prosecutor from the same Prosecutor’s Office rejected the applicant’s appeal.
13.  On 29 November 2010 an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court upheld the applicant’s appeal on points of law and ordered a re-examination of the applicant’s case. The judge found that the investigation conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office had been superficial and incomplete.
14.  After the reopening of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the conduct of a new forensic medical examination. In a report dated 30 December 2010 a forensic doctor found that on 13 November 2009 the applicant had presented numerous bruises on her face and limbs and a broken nose. The applicant’s injuries had been produced by at least six different blows with a hard blunt object and since they were located on different parts of her body, they could not have been a result of a fall from the height of her body.
15.  On 20 May 2010 the Rascani Prosecutor’s Office refused again to initiate criminal proceedings. This time the prosecutor argued that according to his verifications in the documents of the hospital where the applicant had undergone an x-ray of her nose, the procedure had been carried out not on 13 but on 10 November 2009. Moreover, the prosecutor found a discrepancy between the records in the forensic medical report of 13 November 2009 where the time of the applicant’s ill-treatment was indicated as 1 a.m. on 12 November and her subsequent statements indicated it as 11.30 p.m. on 11 November 2009. This decision was upheld by a superior prosecutor on 26 September 2011 and by an investigating judge from the Rascani District Court on 1 November 2011.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and is currently detained in Giurgiu Prison.
5.  On 19 May 2010 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having committed drug-related crimes. He was convicted on 6 May 2011 by the Bucharest County Court and sentenced to eighteen years’ imprisonment. The decision became final on 5 June 2012.
6.  The applicant was held in the pre-trial detention facilities of the Bucharest Direction of Criminal Investigations until 16 November 2010. On that date he was transferred to Rahova Prison, where he remained until 13 August 2012.
7.  He described the overall conditions of detention as follows: overcrowded cells, lack of natural light and lack of fresh air. In particular he described cells that measured about 19 sq. m and were 2.2 m high; each cell containing eight beds constantly occupied at full capacity; there was no natural light, only artificial light provided by one 40 W bulb which was insufficient; he had no access to fresh air. There was no refrigerator to store food in proper conditions. He shared cells with individuals arrested for violent crimes and there had been no means of summoning the guards, even though several violent incidents had taken place between the detainees.
8.  According to the official prison records adduced by the Government, in the police detention facilities the applicant had been placed in cells situated in the basement (demisol), the first measuring 9 sq. m and containing four beds and the second measuring 13.5 sq. m and having six beds. The cells were occupied at full capacity. The cells had a table and chairs as well as a squat toilet, sink and shower separated from the living space by a curtain. The detainees had access to running water, and the cells were heated during winter. There was access to natural light, as each cell was provided with a window, but also to artificial light provided by a lamp placed in each cell, above the door, and protected by an iron grille. Personal hygiene was effected by means of products provided by the prison or acquired by the detainees themselves.
9.  According to the same official information, in Rahova Prison the applicant had been held in different cells, all measuring 21 sq. m and containing eight beds (except for one cell where there were only six beds), a table, chairs and a support for a TV set. Adjacent to the cell there was a bathroom equipped with a toilet, sinks and a shower. Cold water was available continuously and hot water was available twice a week. The cell was heated to 18oC during the winter. The applicant was allowed to exercise for two hours daily in the interior courtyard and had access to outdoor and indoor sport facilities.
4.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Nizhniy Tagil.
5.  On 19 August 2009 the Leninskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg convicted the applicant of massive fraud, an offence punishable with up to ten years’ imprisonment, and sentenced him to five and a half years’ in prison.
6.  During the trial the applicant was represented by his counsel.
7.  On 3 September 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal.
8.  On 23 October 2009 the Sverdlovskiy Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal. It follows from the appeal judgment that the applicant could follow the appeal hearing by video link from the Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1. Counsel and prosecutor did not attend the hearing.
9.  On 19 August 2009 the applicant was placed in Yekaterinburg remand prison IZ-66/1 and was held there until 27 October 2009. According to the applicant, conditions of detention there were inhuman and degrading because of overcrowding.